Gene Editing

>>9111718
howmany of these threads do we need?

would results be quicker obtained if we focus on either catgirls or monsters.
LETS PRIORITIZE FOR GOD SAKE.
there is to mutch at stake here to be goofing around.

>>9112823
I agree. We need to speed up development. The world depends on it.

>>9111718
Not yet
But since we can map genome of individuals we are getting closer
By closer I mean we invented bronze to build spaceships with but still

Yes, and we've done so for years. The stumbling block is ethics, not practical hurdles

>>9112856
Can't you just claim its in the name of diversity or something? I'm sure the left can find some way to justify it.

>>9112856
This. Fuck bioethics

>>9112856
>The stumbling block is ethics, not practical hurdles
plus the fact that editing a genome to produce significant changes to a certain end is retardfuckingly difficult, good luck trying to give someone furry triangular ears at a certain area of the skull

Genome editing is in its infancy still. There's so much to the genome itself that is unknown and also there's huge discoveries to be made in epigenetics. It's not likely to leave the laboratory for decades.

>>9112856
Ethics, and money. Certain projects are much more profitable than others.

It makes more sense to use genetic engineering, at its current state, for industrialization and agricultural benefit. Increasing vitamins in certain grains, increasing yield, etc.

The industrial prospects to me are amazing though. Being able to grow biological products on racks in factories, like leather or ivory or scales or feathers. Such things are becoming increasingly possible, and we've already begun producing chemicals this way such as insulin from genetically modified E-coli. It's completely clean in terms of being able to remove any possible runoff, no atmospheric pollution- it's pure profit.

It just takes a lot of research, a lot of testing, a lot of time, and most importantly, a lot of money to get to any viable product, due to the amount of balances needed to be made.

File: 1473695338929.jpg (36KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

36KB, 400x400px

>>9113107
>tfw you pick up your artificial human infant skull tea cup set for 4 bucks at IKEA

>>9113116
Jesus Christ that gave me a couple of things to think about.

I've always thought that when it comes to humans and genetic engineering, it'll be taking genes from other species and using it to augment humans. But what if it takes a weirder, more bizarre, gross turn and we start taking human genes and using it for other species, including microorganisms?

In a lot of ways this would be even better- grow blood of all types in vats, prosthetics, hormones, etc., but fuck, grow human skeletons and just plain flesh and stuff.


I wonder if you were able to replace all of the genes responsible for the nervous system, both material and schematic, of mammals with human genes, and achieve sentience?

>>9113124
>I wonder if you were able to replace all of the genes responsible for the nervous system, both material and schematic, of mammals with human genes, and achieve sentience?
I don't know a lot about nervous systems and their genetics, but possibly (assuming you fix other shit like skull size and the integration of the nervous system into the body, you don't want to cram 1 L human brain into 200 ml cat skull, nor draw human neurons throughout the body that don't actually work with cat cells). You could start by trying to cross-breed similar but differently intelligent animals, like parrots and *insert dumb bird* and seeing how that goes. It would be incredibly interesting by cross-planting behavior, like beyond just intelligence some things are peculiar to certain species, like parrots ability to imitate sounds.

But it would probably be incredibly difficult, since you don't only need to put human neural cell genes into an animal, but also all the factors that cause them to develop properly, like hormones. I don't even know how a cows hormonal system differs from a humans.

>>9113142
Well, nerves are pretty similar cross-species in terms of the actual nerve cells, the difference is mainly on the schematic side, which is controlled by a whole hell of a lot of genes. That's why developmental biology has so many mysteries- how cells are directed to be built in a specific order is controlled by so many genes activated in an incredibly specific order which in turn are controlled by many genes and concentrations of proteins, salts, sugars, etc. that it becomes a task similar to taking an entire orchestra and trying to write the sheet music for each individual instrument in the ensemble.

If I were to list probably the biggest milestones in human history over the 21st century, I'd place all of them (hopefully) into biology.

-Mastery of Developmental biology
-Finishing the Connectome Project
-CRISPR
-Artifical Neurons (being able to synapse mechanical components to biological)

Honestly Biology and its related fields is where it's at right now.

>>9113178
some form of clean, cheap energy would probably be up there since we use energy for basically everything, but yeah biology is exciting stuff

I'm studying for a biochem test on monday right now, and you really get an appreciation for just how diabolically complex the whole organism is, just a single cell is complicated as fuck in components and behavior.

>>9113196
Good luck fampai. I love biochem, probably second to molecular genetics in general.

Though, as complex as it is, it always astounds me, the estimate for the total # of genes in the human genome is only around 20,000. With only a little dedication, a person could memorize that in a few years time without much difficulty- the fact that it can be summed up like that to me seems almost ridiculously small for how complex it is.

>>9113201
it's actually pretty fun even though remembering hundreds of molecular structures, names, enzymes and steps between these is very painful

as for the genome just the number of genes doesn't really do justice to the complexity, since recombination and post-translational protein modification makes those genes more than what they just appear to be on the surface

unless you meant it in a manner of "oh how complex such a simple thing can be"

>>9113212
Oh yeah, not to say there are only that many processes. Just that something so simple can have so many molecular mechanisms involved to process only such a limited base of actual code.

It gives hope that computer modeling will be possible in the future though. It just feels due to knowing the general scope of the number of useful sections of genetic code, that there's a place to launch off of in trying to uncover many of the mysteries and mechanisms of biology.

>>9111718
We need this asap

Epigenetic factors are more important